Paris Peace Accords 23 Oct. 1991

Sunday, June 8, 2014

John Lennox - "A Matter of Gravity: God, the Universe and Stephen Hawking" [a very educational talk, with TRANSCRIPT]

Nonsense
remains nonsense even when taught by world-class physicists. What serves to obscure the illogicality of
such statements is the fact that they are made by famous scientists.
And the general public not surprisingly assumes that they are statements
of science and take them on authority.

Dr.
John Lennox (3 Ph.Ds) Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, speaking at Cape Town
University

Hawking, the
world’s most famous living scientist.
Symbol of fortitude having suffered motor neuron disease over 40
years. Electronic voice
synthesizer. Book / research deals with
origin of universe.

His book A Brief History
of Time, showed reticence: “If
physicists were to find a theory of everything, that is a theory that unifies
the four fundamentals of nature, we would know the mind of God.“

Stephen Hawking’s latest book The
Grand Design, his reticence has completely disappeared: He challenges the divine creation of the
universe. “Now, it is the law of physics, and not the will of God, that
provide the real explanation as to how the universe came to being. The Big Bang is the inevitable consequence of
those laws. Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create
itself from nothing.” Denies Grand Designer.

Hawking’s grand
conclusion: Spontaneous creation is the reason
there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we
exist. It is not necessary to invoke God
to light the blue-touch paper and set the universe going.”

Headline news. Hawking and Richard Dawkins, the vanguard of
the New Atheism.

A grandiose claim to banish
God. After the
majority of great scientists in the past have believe in Him, and many still do:
Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell.

The very fact that there are
leading scientists who believe in God, and leading scientists who do not, shows
us the simplest notion that science is somehow at war with
belief in God is FALSE.

There is a conflict, but it
lies much deeper in: a
conflict of WORLDVIEWS (from time immemorial): The
Naturalist worldview (the cosmos is all that exists, everything is
reduced to mass and energy) vs.the Theistic worldview
(cosmos is created, there is a God who created it and maintains it). Even today, those worldviews colliding in the
academy.

Issue is not with Hawking’s science but what he claims to deduce from
it. The Grand Design opens with big questions:
How do we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? Did the universe need a creator?

In his very next words, Hawking dismisses philosophy. The above “questions are for philosophy.
But philosophy is dead. It has
not kept up with modern development of science, particularly in physics. As a result, scientists have become the
bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

Hawking’s statement about philosophy is itself a philosophical
statement. It is not a statement of science; it’s a
metaphysical statement about science. Therefore because he claims philosophy is
dead, he contradicts himself.

Furthermore, the
statement that scientists have become the bearer of the torch of discovery
smacks of SCIENTISM, the very widespread view that science
is the only way to truth. That is manifestly false. If true, then must closed down all social
sciences departments.

Nobel Laureate Sir Peter
Medawar pointed out the dangers of scientism. His book Advice to aYoung
Scientist: “There is no quicker way for a scientist
to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare
that science knows or will soon know the answers to all questions worth asking.”

The existence of the limits to
science is made clear by its inability to answer child-like elementary questions
having to do with first and last things.
For instance, what do we are here for?
How did everything begin? What is
the meaning of human existence? What
happens after we die?

Hawking’s flawed view of philosophy leads to a flawed view of God. “Ignorance of nature’s way led people of
ancient times to invent God to lord over every aspect of human life. This began to change when ancient Greek
thinkers began to think in this kind of way… to replace the notion of the reign
of the gods with a universe that is governed by laws of nature… according to a
blueprint we can someday learn to read.”

Hawking is
clearly thinking of God as the God of the Gaps,
to be displaced by scientific advance.But that is not
the view of God that is to be found in any monotheistic religion, where
God is the author of the whole show. Nor, the god of the deist who lit the blue-touch paper to
start the universe but retire to a vast uninvolved distance.

God created the universe and
constantly sustains it in existence. Without
Him, there would be nothing there for physicists like Hawking to study.

The conclusion of the
Grand Design: Because
there is a law of gravity, the universe will create itself out of nothing.

Concentrate on “NOTHING”: no
space, time, matter, whatever. From
nothing to something. What dose Hawking mean by “nothing”?

“Because there is a law of
gravity” (there is something: gravity or the law of gravity is not
nothing). He doesn’t mean nothing in the
normal philosophical term. He goes on to
contradict himself.

Secondly, “the universe can and will CREATE ITSELF” – X
creates X presupposes the existence of X to account for the existence of X; logically
incoherent; self-contradictory; to presuppose the existence of the
universe to account for the universe sounds like something out of Alice in
Wonderland, not science. Universe came
from a nothing that turns out to be a something; the universe creates itself: 2
distinct levels of contradiction in one sentence.

Moreover, Hawking’s notion of the law of nature, gravity, explains
the existence of the universe is also contradictory since the law of nature
depends on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe.

Central assertion of Hawking’s
book, then appears to have TRIPLE self-contradiction.

Absurdity of desperation of contemporary attempts to create the universe from
NOTHING.

Physicist Laurence
Krauss:“Surely, nothing is every bit physical as
something, especially if it is to be defined as the absence of something.”This is sheer nonsense. The universe is something physical so nothing
the absence of the universe is physical
– ABSURD.

Philosopher David
Albert: “Krauss is dead wrong. And his philosophical and religious critics
are absolutely right. If what we
formerly took for nothing turns out in closer examination to have the makings
of proton and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and
galaxies and the universe is in it, then it wasn’t nothing. And it couldn’t have been nothing in the
first place. And the history of science,
if we understand it correctly, gives (gets?) us no hint of how it was possible
to imagine otherwise.”

The point is that a quantum
vacuum is not nothing. [More quoting
from David Albert.] Even Krauss admits
in the end: “Empty space is complicated; it’s a boiling brew of virtual particles
and it is not nothing.”

John Lennox to Alan Guth (a
father of cosmology) at MIT-Harvard Club:
“Alan, there’s a problem here.
People are confused about NOTHING.
You don’t mean the nothing you talked about in physics is not
philosophical nothing; it’s not the absence of being.” Alan responds: No, it isn’t.

Is it too much ado about
nothing?!

What all this goes to show: Nonsense
remains nonsense even when taught by world-class physicists. What serves to obscure the illogicality of
such statements is the fact that they are made by famous scientists.
And the general public not surprisingly assumes that they are statements
of science and take them on authority. Thus, very important to realize that
statements by a scientist are not necessarily statements of science. Immense prestige and authority does not
compensate for faulty logic.

The worrying thing is this illogical notion of the universe
creating itself is not some peripheral points in these major books; it appears
to bethe key
argument. And if the key argument is
invalid, in one sense, there’s little left to say.

Hawking’s faulty concept of
God, as the god of the gaps, now begins to make a further
mistake, which is characteristic of the contemporary debate and causes a great
deal of confusion: If you
think of God as a placeholder—the more science, the less God as science begins
to fill in those gaps, you will inevitably forced to make a decision between
God and Science. The problem
there is not so much their concept of science, but their concept of God. In Hawking’s case, he asks us to choose
between God and the laws of physics.
Hawking: the multiple universes arise naturally from physical law.

What is being confused here are
two very different things: a super
natural being is an agent who does something (e.g. God of the Bible, He s a
Personal Agent). Dismissing such agency, Hawking
ascribes creative power to physical law.
But physical law is not an agent.
It’s a category mistake: he’s confusing two entirely different kinds of
entity: physical law and personal agency; so that the choice is between false
alternatives.

When it comes to matter of
EXPLANATION, there are different levels of explanation. God is an explanation of the universe but not
the same kind of explanation nor in competition with explanation given by
physics and cosmology.

To suggest that these two
explanations (law of physics/engineering AND Sir Frank Whittle) compete with
one another or contradict one another is nonsense.

Two KINDS OF EXPLANATION (i) LAWS and mechanisms, (ii)
AGENCY – do not conflict, but COMPLEMENT.

When Newton discovered
law of gravitation, he didn’t say he no longer needed God; no, he wrote PRINCIPIA
MATHEMATICA (the most famous book in the whole history of science),
expressly with hope to persuade the thinking man to believe in God.

Law of physics can explain how
the jet engine works, but not how it came to be in the first place. Self-evident that the jet engine could not be
created by the law of physics on their own; needed the creative intelligence of
Whittle. Laws of physics plus Whittle
could not have produced a jet engine on their own; also needed to be some
materials, some objects. MATTER may be
humble stuff, but it is not produced by laws.

Helps us clear a further misunderstanding: Science concentrates on
material causation: HOW does the jet engine work? WHY question as it relates to function (Why
is valve here?) But it does not
ask the WHY question of PURPOSE.

[Quoting Laplace]

Where gravity came from? Hawking claims from M theory. However to say a theory or physical law could
bring a universe into existence is to misunderstand what theory and law is.

Mathematical laws are a
description of what normally happens under certain given conditions. Law: The sun rises in the East. But obvious this law doesn’t create the sun. LAWS are descriptive and
predictive, but NOT CREATIVE.

Similarly, Newton’s law of
gravitation does not create gravity, or the matter on which gravity acts.

What is more, when we think of
this notion that science is the only way to truth, Newton’s law of gravitation
doesn’t tell you what gravity is. No one
knows what it is. (Energy, light – laws do not explain what these things are.)

Great Power Culture Authority
that science has.

Newton’s law of motion never
caused a billiard ball to race across the green table; laws can help us to
analyze the motion, but they cannot CAUSE the motion. Often missed.
Ex. Paul Davis:Don’t like the idea of
divine tinkering; for me, more inspiring to believe a set of mathematical laws
can be as so clever as to bring all things into being.

CS Lewis with characteristic
clarity: law of nature produced no event…

Theories and laws do not bring
mass energy into existence.

Hawking, Krauss failed to
answer what they set out to answer: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Allan Sandage,
father of modern astronomy: “I
find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing
principle. God to me is a mystery but is
the explanation for the miracle of existence why there is something rather than
nothing.”

Like other physicists, Hawking is confronted with powerful evidence of design in
the universe and he admits it. Our universe and its laws
appear to have been designed, tailored made to support us, and if we are to
exist, leaves little room for alteration.
That is not easily explained.

Raises the natural question WHY
IT IS THIS WAY. Recent discovery of FINE-TUNING
of many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us
back to the old idea that this GRAND DESIGN is the work of some GRAND DESIGNER.

That is not the answer of
modern science! Our universe seems to be
one of many each with different laws.

Clearly, Hawking
recognizes a grand design; devoted an entire chapter to these spectacular
examples of fine-tuning, both laws of nature and the constants associated with
fundamental physics. Evidence he gives
is impressive, and certainly fits in with what he calls the “old idea” that
this grand design is the work of some grand designer.

Of course, it does. It fits like a glove, because there actually
is a Grand Designer! Idea of Grand Designer is certainly old,
but the question to ask is not its age but WHETHER IT’S TRUE.

Simply saying it’s old may give
false impression that what is old is necessarily false and has been
superseded. And secondly, can give the
erroneous impression that no one holds it today. But some of the finest minds do hold it,
including some of Hawking’s collaborators.
The conviction that there is a Grand Designer, God the Creator, is held
by millions, if not BILLIONS, of people, vastly more than those who hold the
atheist alternative. But of course,
these things are not to be decided on statistics.

Now, Hawking’s answer is not the Grand
Designer but the MULTIVERSE, that there are several or an
infinite number of universes it which anything that can happen will happen. Thus, not surprising there’s one like ours
(universe).

Again, Hawking
is arguing FALSE ALTERNATIVES: God or the multiverse. But as philosophers have pointed out: God is
capable of creating more than one universe.

Hawking explains
why things are the way they are: M-Theory

Don Page (physicist): Even
if M-theory is fully acknowledged theory, does not imply God did not create the
universe.

Hawking’s claim to be the voice
of modern science gives a false impression, since there are weighty voices who
disagree with him, e.g. Sir Roger Pemrose (his major collaborator)
writes of multiverse: “It’s
overused… an excuse for not having a good theory… M-Theory is very far from any
testability… collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations.” According to Pemrose’s estimation, M-Theory is
hardly science. Please note, Pemrose’s
criticisms are solely scientific, do not arise from any religious conviction. (He is a member of the British Humanist
Association.)

John Polkinghorne:There’s no access to these other universes, I
am tempted to add that belief in God seems to be a much more rational option if
the alternative is to be that every other universe that can possibly exists
does exist, including one in which Richard Dawkins is the Archbishop of
Cantebury and Billy Graham is voted the Atheist of the Year.

Review by Tim Radford
of The Grand Design, in which Hawking
ascribes the creation of the cosmos to the natural laws and to various
theories, including the M-Theory:

“In this very brief history of modern cosmological physics, the laws
of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but
widely accepted: just like biblical miracles. M-theory invokes something
different: a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and
nowhere. This force cannot be identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible
mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities. It incorporates
omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, and it’s a big mystery. Remind you
of Anybody?”

Hawking in attacking religion
feels so compelled to put so much in the Big Bang Theory, a theory suggested by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. Even if
non-believers don’t like it, it resonates POWERFULLY with the Christian
narrative of CREATION:“In
the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”That is
why before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists, including the
editor of Nature, John Maddox in the 1960s, were keen to dismiss it since it
seems to support the Bible’s story. Some
still like Fred Hoyle clung to Aristotle’s view of the eternal universe without
beginning or end.

The
Bible which has been quietly asserting for millennia that there was a beginning
has proved to be correct.

Hawking
believes there’s a deep seeded conflict between science and God. This is not a discord I recognize. For me as a Christian believer, the beauty of
the scientific law… the breath and the sophistication and integrity of His
creation…

If Hawking is right, that we are nothing
more than collection of atoms, that not only undermine belief in God, but undermine
the very rationality we need to study science, and undermine belief in atoms
themselves. Indeed, if this reductionist belief is true,
how would we know it?! If
the brain is merely the end product of a mindless, unguided process, then
there’s no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth. The main reason why I discount atheism. Not so much because I am a Christian but
because the logical conclusion of the reductionist worldview is to leave
rationality without justification.

Whereas,
if we look in the other direction, our capacity to do science, that is for
rationality thought, is certainly a pointer not downward to chance and
necessity merely, but upwards to an intelligence source of that capacity.

We
live in an information age.
Language-type information is very much connected with intelligence. A few letters spelling our name in the sand,
we deduced upward to intelligence. Semiotics. That’s just a few letters of our name. But when we observe the
BEWILDERING complexity of the human genome of 3.5 BILLION letters in that
four-letter chemical alphabet, all in the right order, with the same kind of
semiotics dimension coding for the protein, I
find it rather curious that people instead of inferring that intelligence must
be involved whatever natural processes are immediately discount what they would
never discount under any other circumstances.

Hawking’s
atheism, and that of Richard Dawkins, undermines the rationality then that we
need to do science.

[Great
Q&A with challenging questions]

Q: “irrefutable
evidence there is no God”

A: PROOF
is only in mathematics; not in even in the natural sciences. When I talk in the natural sciences it’s EVIDENCE. Now, “irrefutable” means evidence cannot be
knocked down any other way, but we’re dealing with WEIGHING THE BALANCE OF
THE EVIDENCE. There’s no irrefutable
evidence that my wife loves me, and we’ve been married for 44 years, but I put
life on it. God is not a theory; He’s a
Person. The evidence we demand for a
person is much more sophisticated.
There’s powerful EVIDENCE that God exists: the FINE-TUNING argument. The issue:
Is the cumulative evidence enough?

Q: Surely, a Designer need a
designer.

A: Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion: absurd to
be in a Creator, because who created the Creator? Infinite regress. “Who created X?”A
complex question:in
the question is buried an assumption that closes down the possibility without
you sometimes noticing it. If titled “Created God Delusion”, we already
know created gods are delusion, what we called “idols”. Here’s the point: the question “Who created the Creator? bypasses the question, Is there
an Eternal Uncreated Creator?

Q: Discount other religions and their ideas of God?

A: Investigate the EVIDENCE.

Q: How do you go from that to a Personal God (and the God of
Christianity is essential the question)?

A: Yes, there is a gap: from Intelligence out
there to a Personal God; look at all suffering in the world? Columbia Univ. lecture on 9-11. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God; the Word was God.” “The
Word became human and dwell among us.” Either nonsense or something in
it.

Answer relies on evidence, not
of only the scientific kind, but also from other disciplines: history,
literature. Evidence:OBJECTIVE
(science, history) and SUBJECTIVE (experience). How do we get to know a person? REVELATION. Not if the person not speak; unless a person
reveals him/her-self to us, by speaking to us, the WORD.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Declassified CIA documents

Sam Rainsy

Note from Hengsoy Jr.

We, Heng Soy's family and friends, are as dedicated as ever to continue his legacy of publishing sensitive information about Cambodia.

Ethnocide: destruction of a culture

For 10 years, the Vietnamese tried to apply to Cambodia a policy of ethnocide, insidiously carried out in the educational domain.... [T]he curriculum was based on that of Vietnam.... "Even schools' names come from Vietnamese"

Disputed Cambodia’s territorial waters

Facing Genocide

Award-winning film is a search into the personality of Khieu Samphan, meetings with him one and half year before his arrest (Khmer / French with English subtitles)

HRW report - DRAGGED AND BEATEN

The Cambodian Government’s Role in the October 2015 Attack on Opposition Politicians

Sam Rainsy's CV ប្រវត្តិរូប លោក សម រង្សីុ

(ខេមរភាសា / English) Leadership Cambodians desire, deserve

30 Years of Hun Sen

75-page report by Human Rights Watch, Jan. 2015

Reminder from Heng Soy (founder of KI Media)

Truth2Power (T2P) Media [formerly KI Media] loves to hear from you, and we're giving you a bullhorn. We just ask that you keep things civil. Please leave out personal attacks, do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. We thank you for your cooperation!

Concerts for the People of Kampuchea

On Dec 26-29, 1979 [by now, Cambodia under one full year of Vietnamese occupation], the musician Paul McCartney and Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, organized a four-night benefit

Vietnam Invasion of Kampuchea (2 of 5, Film in English)

'The Vietnamese boasted, "The situation in Kampuchea is irreversible." ...the Vietnamese had installed a government of their own choosing. The figurehead were former Khmer Rouge... The Pol Pot regime had ended. But the worse was still not over... hundreds of thousands died during two long years of famine.'

Welcome to The Harvard Classics

Speak Truth to Power

A WORLD SAFE FOR DIVERSITY

Punctuation is Key to Development

Compare these two versions of Khmer article: Original vs. With Punctuation

Fair Trial Rights Handbook

In both Khmer and English

How chronic stress affects your brain

TED-Ed: How chronic stress can affect the brain's size, structure, and how it functions

Trauma Handbook

In both Khmer and English

Time for Truth

Os Guinness at Stanford Univ.

Is Tolerance Intolerant?

Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion - Ravi Zacharias at UCLA

Gene Sharp

From Dictatorship to Democracy, in English, other languages, free downloading

Gene Sharp

From Dictatorship to Democracy (Khmer translated by Mr. Ung Bun Ang)

UDHR

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, punctuated Khmer

Proverbs

Punctuated Khmer

Elizabeth Becker

Luke

ដំណឹងល្អ រៀបរៀង ដោយលូកា (Punctuated Khmer)

Sam Rainsy

My Struggle for Democracy in Cambodia

MIRACLES: Is Belief in Supernatural Irrational?

Standing ovation for this witty, illuminating, educational talk of Oxford prof. John Lennox at Harvard Univ.

Theary Seng

Rithy Panh

Pin Yathay

Nic Dunlop

How To Make Your Kids Smarter

10 Steps Backed By Science

KramaNation

KI Media family in KramaNation

ប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រ ប្រទេស កម្ពុជា | History Series

សម រង្ស៊ី / Sam Rainsy: ខ្ញុំ សូម លាតត្រដាង ប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រ ប្រទេស កម្ពុជា មួយរយៈកាល (ពីឆ្នាំ ១៩៥១ ដល់ឆ្នាំ ១៩៩១) ដែលគេ បិទបាំង មិនឲ្យ ប្រជារាស្ត្រខ្មែរ បានដឹង។ I would like to expose a period of Cambodia's history (from 1951 to 1991) that has been hidden to the Cambodian people.

REPEAT OFFENDER: Vietnam's Persistent Trade in Illegal Timber

Report of London-based Environmental Investigation Agency, May 2017

GRAND CONCESSIONS

Vietnamese People's Army has quietly assumed control of nearly 40,000 hectares of land in Ratanakkiri (Cambodia Daily, 24 Dec. 2015)

Global Witness: Rubber Barons

How Vietnamese companies and international financiers are driving a land grabbing crisis in Cambodia and Laos

K-5 GENOCIDE, 1981-88

The Vietnamization of Cambodia: A New Model of Colonialism

A series of exposes that Indochina Report has published on the Vietnamization process. Others in the series: "The Military Occupation of Kampuchea" (1985), "Vietnamized Cambodia: A Silent Ethnocide" by Marie Alexandrine Martin (1986). and "Daily Life in Cambodia: A Personal Account" by Dr. Esmeralda Luciolli (1988)

Vietnamization: Airlines, Airspace

Cambodia Angkor Air, "golden route" over Cambodian airspace

Cambodia's Family Tree

Global Witness Report: Cambodia is run by a kleptocratic elite that generates much of its wealth via the seizure of public assets, particularly natural resources.

The Economist explains economics

The Economist explains” 6 seminal economics ideas.

Who Killed Chea Vichea?

The Peabody Award-winning film in both KHMER and English. More at www.whokilledcheavichea.com.

I Am Chut Wutty

Banned in Cambodia, documentary film about murdered environmental activist by govt security